ANSHUL KATHURIA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the plaintiff in a suit filed by him for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/ - (rupees five lacs) against the two respondents herein. The suit came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 10th July, 2007. Feeling aggrieved thereby the present appeal was filed by the appellant, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiff '.

(2.) THE relevant facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced during the trial as well as from the impugned judgment may first be noticed. The plaintiff is the grandson of respondent No. 2 herein (who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the suit and shall hereinafter also be referred to as 'defendant No. 2 '). The plaintiff had lost his father when he was a minor thereafter his mother remarried. Then litigation for his custody started between his mother (PW -2) and defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 filed a petition in Court for the custody of the plaintiff(being Guardianship Case No. 180 of 1990) on 21/09/87. That petition was, however, withdrawn by him on 06 -04 -92. It appears that during the pendency of the guardianship matter the defendant No. 2 had got prepared one Fixed Deposit Receipt for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - in the name of the plaintiff from New Bank of India on 19 -11 -88. Since the plaintiff was a minor at that time, defendant No. 2 was shown as the guardian in that FDR and there was an endorsement on the FDR made by the bank to the effect that FDR proceeds were not to be paid till the attainment of majority by the plaintiff. The FDR was made for a period of 84 months and the maturity value was Rs. 1,99,650/ - and the defendant No. 2 appears to have kept the same at the disposal of the Guardianship Court where the plaintiff 's custody matter was pending. When that case was withdrawn by defendant No. 2 the Judge had directed that the FDR amount be invested in the name of the minor child with the Unit Trust of India and FDR delivered to defendant No. 2. That, however, was not done and it appears from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led before the trial Court that the defendant No. 2 had got the FDR encashed but had neither got the proceeds thereof invested with the Unit Trust of India nor had he given the money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff on majority filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/ -, which included the principal amount of maturity value of the FDR and interest thereon, on 19 -05 -2005 impleading Punjab National Bank, respondent No. 1 herein as defendant No. 1 since by that time it had taken over the erstwhile New Bank of India. His grandfather was impleaded as defendant No. 2. The plaintiff had claimed in the suit that both the defendants were jointly as well as severally liable to pay the said amount along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till actual payment to him.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 claimed that the suit was not maintainable as there was no cause of action against him. He pleaded that the FDR in question was encashed by him on the request of the plaintiff 's mother. Defendant No. 2 also claimed that he had plaintiff 's school fees of Rs. 65,000/ - in cash and Rs. 6546/ -and also paid other expenses including lodging and boarding of the plaintiff and has from time to time paid cash of Rs. 2,00,000/ - apart from above mentioned expenses to the plaintiff 's mother for the welfare of the plaintiff.